Comments on: Twitter: Juror tweets leading to Jury twubble.

By: Laurel Papworth

Laurel Papworth — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:49:49 +0000

Ok try this one. The law interferes in the due process of commerce by trying to block discussions it deems as interfering with it’s own case, thereby removing relevant and vital information required by business people the world over to undertake informed decisions re: trade and commerce.

Twitter fixes unfair limitations placed on commerce by an archaic and unfair law.

By: Kimota

Kimota — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:33:38 +0000

If you don’t believe in panic-selling based on rumour, you haven’t watched the news for the last six months.

You acknowledge in your response above that an tweet from the courtroom could affect stock price because you argue that it’s a weird law to keep shareholders uninformed.

If you want fair reporting of events in a courtroom of public interest to shareholders – that’s what the journos are in the room for. The juror has nothing to do with it except keeping an unbiased and focussed view on the evidence at hand.

And for the record, I’m as socialist as they come. I’m all for honesty in business just as I’m for continual evolution in the law. But the law won’t change just because someone wants to tweet out of turn and this argument isn’t about honesty in capitalism – far from it. It’s about protecting the validity of unbiased information from outside influences. It is just because we DON’T want rumour in our court rooms that a juror shouldn’t be tweeting – got nothing to do with honesty in business.

Kimota’s last blog post..Writing About Writing

By: Laurel Papworth

Laurel Papworth — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:44:45 +0000

What panic? You speak in theories. You sell a lot of stock based on a blog post hmmm? You buy stock based on rumour, rather than fact? Sheer idiocy.

Kimota you work from the premise that the law must be right, that capitalism would crash if we discussed dealings honestly rather than hiding behind the law. Maybe you are right and maybe that is the heart of capitalism, it won’t survive social media in that case.

Try and take a few of more than a few years ok?

By: Kimota

Kimota — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:22:43 +0000

Actually, no. Avoiding spreading rumour until fact (guilt or innocence) is established. Hardly a weird law and it does more to protect shareholders by having informed trading rather than panic buying or selling based in incorrect info. Kimota’s last blog post..Writing About Writing

By: Laurel Papworth

Laurel Papworth — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:59:10 +0000

yeah another weird law – keep stock holders in the dark until the last possible minute. Like we are all sheep, reacting disproportionately to rumours.

By: Laurel Papworth

Laurel Papworth — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:58:00 +0000

Oh we have a few furphys of our own. Courts that uphold the rights of the mother to keep the children, keep the house, keep the money but deny access to fathers. Every law reflects it’s society – in the Middle East, it’s shameful that women are made to go to work by their fathers and husbands in the west. Your “developments” are still reflecting society, not some pure ‘right and wrong’.

By: It won’t happen overnight… changing society is slow | acidlabs

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:27:20 +0000

[...] all better advice and judgment) to impose a clean Internet feed on Australian society and then Laurel Papworth’s piece on a tweeting juror, that may have implications for the outcome of [...]

By: Kimota

Kimota — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:22:22 +0000

You mean the centuries where people could be tried and burned as a witch on the hearsay of the community? Or the centuries where the right to appeal wasn’t even available? Or the centuries where the truth was less potent in a court room than community feeling?

And you think the developments of the last hundred or so years within our legal process are a bad thing and should be rolled back to allow people the right to tweet?

I know where I’d put my money…

Kimota’s last blog post..Writing About Writing